Metropolitan Building

**buildingsofdetroit** · January-27-10, 04:14 AM

Got history, old photos and a look inside the Metropolitan Building up: http://www.buildingsofdetroit.com/places/metro

**gnome** · January-27-10, 07:01 AM

Another excellent write-up BoD. Amazing stuff.

**esp1986** · January-27-10, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by HazenPingree

The condition of the BC may have been superior to that of the Lafayette - we will never know. However, even the most fire damaged structure can be rehabilitated and financed.

Just off of Woodward, 71 Garfield is nearly complete. I walked through 71 Garfield during many stages of the building's rehabilitation and I believe that it was in far worse condition that either the Lafayette or BC - no roof, no windows, few intact floors, but it will be restored [[with a marble lobby no less!) It is possible, but such a project just takes the skillful hand of a development professional.

You have to realize though, that these are massive buildings with concrete floors and steel construction... any structural work requires quite a massive undertaking... for example, the sagging floors of the Lafayette, which would have required part of the floor to be removed for the steel frame to be worked on... Anything with a wooden frame, and no floors, are significantly cheaper to repair... these large steel structures are very costly to work on because of the numerous steps involved in the process... an old house, is nothing more than building a new frame or floor, but these old buildings can be very costly to repair and when there is no certainty of tenancy, it makes the undertaking a risk most people aren't willing to take, it is good that they are doing what they can to keep the Metropolitan Building from being the next casualty of a weak downtown real estate market.

**rbdetsport** · January-27-10, 01:38 PM

I know this is a really pie-in-the-sky idea, but looking at the front facade photo and seeing how close the Wurtlitzer and Metropolitan are too each other, what if a developer bought both buildings and made them a joint project connecting the two with a hallway or something?

**esp1986** · January-27-10, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by rbdetsport

I know this is a really pie-in-the-sky idea, but looking at the front facade photo and seeing how close the Wurtlitzer and Metropolitan are too each other, what if a developer bought both buildings and made them a joint project connecting the two with a hallway or something?

I may be doable, but then again comes the condition of the Wurlitzer... and secondly the price, the owner reportedly wants $2 million, an absorbitant amount for that building.

**rbdetsport** · January-27-10, 01:47 PM

Does the city own the Metropolitan?

**ndavies** · January-27-10, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by rbdetsport

Does the city own the Metropolitan?

Yes, they do.

**buildingsofdetroit** · January-27-10, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by rbdetsport

Does the city own the Metropolitan?

City has owned it since 1979: www.buildingsofdetroit.com/places/metro

**DetroiterOnTheWestCoast** · January-27-10, 03:40 PM

Doesn't the distance between the two buildings look much much greater in the first two pictures than in the third?

Personally, if the Metropolitan were saved and the Wurlitzer not, I'd be satisfied. That "half a loaf" thing.

**buildingsofdetroit** · March-10-10, 05:27 PM

Metropolitan Building in the news: http://www.freep.com/article/2010031...073/1001/rss01

Snap photos while you can because that nasty scaffolding stuff is going up soon.

**Gsgeorge** · March-10-10, 07:14 PM

At the very least, this is a fairly good indication that the DDA is interested in preserving the building.

**buildingsofdetroit** · March-10-10, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by Gsgeorge

At the very least, this is a fairly good indication that the DDA is interested in preserving the building.

Sorta. I was told by someone at the DDA meeting that the "D" word was tossed around because of problems with water infiltrating and eroding the shelf angle. That would likely mean having to remove all the bricks from the sides to repair said shelf angle - a costly proposition.

**mcsdetroitfriend** · March-10-10, 09:41 PM

You know I heard this name being tossed around as buildings coming down when I had my meeting with the city and DIBC......I think it was anyway, I hope to God I'm wrong

**wolverine** · March-10-10, 09:43 PM

Very good to hear this. The eastern wall was in extreme disrepair. Basically the outer layer of the top two floors was about to fall off.

**cman710** · March-10-10, 10:36 PM

I hope that the building eventually gets renovated, but given the track record of preservation in the city, it is hard to be very optimistic. Of course, we had to spend $1.4 million to tear down the Lafayette building, instead of using that money to rehabilitate a building in need of repair.

**Dan** · March-10-10, 10:47 PM

The graffiti "artists" that further desecrate our architectural gems need to stop.

Kneecap, one of the usual culprits, is a 30 something year old man.

I like graffiti art in the right place, but many people do not understand it. I heard a prominent Detroiter talking about the window paintings on the Lafayette [[RIP) as a further sign of the buildings eye sore status.

Guys, please stop. I know you are trying to make a statement, but your making things worse.

DetroitDad · March-11-10, 03:24 AM

I doubt any of Downtown Detroit's blight stricken buildings are viable without investment from private [[not for profit), public [[government), and commercial investors. Private groups are who needs to get the ball rolling, and be happy with just having better quality of life [[more tenants equal more new business and less blight) and maybe a sky deck or lobby open for the public to enjoy. While public entities can provide money, I remember reading that for every dollar spent by public entities, private groups and locals will spend three to make it viable for a developer, buyer, or major tenant.

Our private sector isn't doing it's part. Preservationists seem to only get involved once a building is slated for demolition, not for buildings that can still be saved. Likewise, other charities don't serve this purpose, and I don't believe any significant groups exist that represent area urbanists.

It's been thirty three years since the Metropolitan Building went vacant, and a over ten years since the site was cleaned up. The city is sinking money into it, developers have shown interest in it. The Metropolitan Building could have been redeveloped a decade ago.

**Huggybear** · March-11-10, 09:16 AM

DetroitDad is right - there is a lot of wailing an gnashing of teeth, but there is little participation from the private sector. It is difficult for a lot of people to comprehend just how difficult it is to fit a square peg into a round hole [[or into a trapezoidal hole). Next time you are at Cafe D'Mongo, I would suggest asking its owner what he is doing about the Metropolitan, since he claimed recently to hold the development rights [[in some deal going back to the Young Administration).

I wouldn't waste time wailing about it here. I would start an organization to raise the millions it would cost to fix that facade and start raising those millions. Yesterday. And why raise the millions? Because few people here understand the concept of the "gap." If the DDA donates its property to a project, the project gets every tax break and credit imaginable, and DEGC obtains every grant possible and aggressively markets it, BUT an end user is not willing to step up with the difference between market price and what the redevelopment price is, it's game over. That's why Ferchill and Gilbert bailed on the Lafayette Building.

There's no magic money. The city is bankrupt. The DEGC and DDA are not pots of gold; their funds collectively come from building inventories, public and private grants [[which - as I'm sure you're aware - come in earmarked), and a operations-only budget from the city. That's why the continued cries of "so-and-so had money to demolish but why not restore" are either based on lack of information or are simply cloying, repetitive arguments worthy of a four-year old. Grown-ups know that buildings rise and fall based on economics. Note that the highest number of downtown demolitions [[representing the greatest surface area) were two- and three-story retail buildings that are now all surface parking lots.

And it's not just a demand issue. The historic buildings that people are trying to save today were built long ago because there was a demand for a particular type of use, for a particular economic lifespan, and according to a particular budget. The Metropolitan Building had a function that did not depend on having a lot of windows, a rectangular shape, or even a location with good frontage. That's going to be a big "fail" for residential redevelopment. And you wouldn't get the historic tax credits for redoing the north side to have windows. So unless someone has a business that can be adapted to it - and one that will support the likely massive cost of rebuilding the facade - it will continue to sit until judgment day.

One thing that I think gets underplayed on DetroitYes is the fact that facade restorations are very, very, very expensive exercises. On a lot of these buildings, the facade is the only thing that differentiates a building from a steel-frame, brick box. They're expensive - which is why they don't get put on new buildings today. And to take them apart to replace the ties between exterior stone/tile and the structure costs just as much [[if not more) than the facades cost to build in the first place. So in today's market, it's a difficult proposition.

And those ties are often the things that go bad. Limestone, for example, is not glued to the outside of a building. It's held in by iron ties between the backside of the stone and the clay brick wall behind. When there is water infiltration, the iron corrodes, and the stone cracks [[or falls off). You can see this on virtually every old office building downtown, even well-maintained ones like the Fisher Building.

The Metropolitan Building [[and PQZ could explain this better) was built using a shortcut that made the front windows impossible to replace without removing a significant portion of the facade tile. I don't know whether this now-unconventional technique was corner-cutting to make a budget or whether - bear in mind that steel construction was relatively new at the time - the designers had no idea what would happen over time.

PQZ · March-11-10, 09:57 AM

The Metro has four conditions that make it challenging for any developer to really make the project work. None of them are "structural" in terms of column or floor plate degradation.

Keep in mind, rents are low in Detroit and most buildings simply cannot generate enough revenue to finance the rehabilitation costs - even with all the tax credits and abatements applied ot the building.

1. Low ceilings. The building has unsually short spans from ceiling to floor. The challenge becomes routing HVAC and fire suppression systems efficiently and in a cost effective manner. It sounds like it should be a simple thing to resolve but the options are either very expensive [[and dicy and time consuming) drilling through conrete or such sytems suspended at height of about 6'5" - 6'10" from the floor. One option adds about 60% to typical HVAC / life systems, the other creates an undesireable unit, especially when compared with the 10', 12', 15' ceiling at proximate competition like the Kales, Merchants Row, Lofts of Woodward etc.

2. Unique window designs that are causing severe spalling and facade separation. The windows are anchored in via a 6" barbed flange. No contractor developer I have spoken to has seen such as system. Long story short, its about a 75% cost increase on the windows over typical projects and is creating serious facade degradation/

3. Odd layout - the triangular shape creates unit layouts that are not efficient and require a significant amount of custom work to things like kitchen cabinets, etc. Its hard to maximize the number of units to recoup more rent incomes.

4. No proximate parking assocaited sirectly with the building.. Any parking would need to be part of a whole block solution. The ideal would be a speed ramp deck inbetween Simmons and Angelinas with residential untis on top that could serve both the Metro, the Wurlitzer, and the new units. Other ooptions would be long term leases at the Opera Hopuse deck. The parking can be done, but the introduction of a third party adds to costs.

So you have a building that will have odd shaped units, low ceilings and for the majority of units, pretty crappy views. These issues will drive down revenues. The building also has some unique physical conditions that will drive up costs past typical costs for renocation in the downtown. Yet the DDA is still plugging away at the building with Eric Larson.

The most viable solution for the building is to go after Low Income Housing Tax Credits and make the building affordable with small units and keep it as a rental for the next 35 years. Target it for the $20,000 a year casino janitor - this will require the City and the DDA putting in subsidies above and beyond the typical tax credits / abatements. It will require the City to make a clear policy choice and invest its limited funds for hosuing assistance int he downtown versus a neighborhood. That can be a politically tough call.

The low income subsidy route allows for less parking [[driving down costs), opens up more financing, and adds some income mixing to downtown.

There's a cause the preservationists could get behind, huh? Maybe put the money where the mouth is and lobby Council to contemplate investing HOME dollars there?

**Hermod** · March-11-10, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by Huggybear

there is a lot of wailing an gnashing of teeth, but there is little participation from the private sector.

Unlike government activities, the private sector has little interest in pouring money down rat holes. Unless they see a probable profit or you gimmick the deal with a lot of government incentives, they will not take the risk.

**Fury13** · March-11-10, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by PQZ

The Metro has four conditions that make it challenging for any developer to really make the project work. None of them are "structural" in terms of column or floor plate degradation.

Keep in mind, rents are low in Detroit and most buildings simply cannot generate enough revenue to finance the rehabilitation costs - even with all the tax credits and abatements applied ot the building.

1. Low ceilings. The building has unsually short spans from ceiling to floor. The challenge becomes routing HVAC and fire suppression systems efficiently and in a cost effective manner. It sounds like it should be a simple thing to resolve but the options are either very expensive [[and dicy and time consuming) drilling through conrete or such sytems suspended at height of about 6'5" - 6'10" from the floor. One option adds about 60% to typical HVAC / life systems, the other creates an undesireable unit, especially when compared with the 10', 12', 15' ceiling at proximate competition like the Kales, Merchants Row, Lofts of Woodward etc.

2. Unique window designs that are causing severe spalling and facade separation. The windows are anchored in via a 6" barbed flange. No contractor developer I have spoken to has seen such as system. Long story short, its about a 75% cost increase on the windows over typical projects and is creating serious facade degradation/

3. Odd layout - the triangular shape creates unit layouts that are not efficient and require a significant amount of custom work to things like kitchen cabinets, etc. Its hard to maximize the number of units to recoup more rent incomes.

4. No proximate parking assocaited sirectly with the building.. Any parking would need to be part of a whole block solution. The ideal would be a speed ramp deck inbetween Simmons and Angelinas with residential untis on top that could serve both the Metro, the Wurlitzer, and the new units. Other ooptions would be long term leases at the Opera Hopuse deck. The parking can be done, but the introduction of a third party adds to costs.

So you have a building that will have odd shaped units, low ceilings and for the majority of units, pretty crappy views. These issues will drive down revenues. The building also has some unique physical conditions that will drive up costs past typical costs for renocation in the downtown. Yet the DDA is still plugging away at the building with Eric Larson.

The most viable solution for the building is to go after Low Income Housing Tax Credits and make the building affordable with small units and keep it as a rental for the next 35 years. Target it for the $20,000 a year casino janitor - this will require the City and the DDA putting in subsidies above and beyond the typical tax credits / abatements. It will require the City to make a clear policy choice and invest its limited funds for hosuing assistance int he downtown versus a neighborhood. That can be a politically tough call.

The low income subsidy route allows for less parking [[driving down costs), opens up more financing, and adds some income mixing to downtown.

There's a cause the preservationists could get behind, huh? Maybe put the money where the mouth is and lobby Council to contemplate investing HOME dollars there?

Thanks for that coherent explanation and analysis, PQZ. I like the idea of going with low-income units there. It does seem like the most viable way to rehab the building.

**ghettopalmetto** · March-11-10, 10:56 AM

Just declare the damned thing structurally unsound, tear it down, and wait for the revitalization to arrive.

**Det_ard** · March-11-10, 11:31 AM

Very good posts huggybear and PZQ. Good explanations and detail. Ghettopalmetto, thanks for stopping by. Maybe you learned something too.

**mikeg19** · March-11-10, 12:37 PM

Very informative PQZ and Huggybear. As I was reading your posts and you were explaining the aforementioned conditions, I thought in my head "how about low income housing?" And there it was. It seems to make the most sense, although redeveloping the building into low income housing probably is not what most people would have in mind for the Metropolitan.

**esp1986** · March-11-10, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by mikeg19

Very informative PQZ and Huggybear. As I was reading your posts and you were explaining the aforementioned conditions, I thought in my head "how about low income housing?" And there it was. It seems to make the most sense, although redeveloping the building into low income housing probably is not what most people would have in mind for the Metropolitan.

I don't want to cut anybody down here, but the problem with low income housing, is that the return would be substantially less. While it may look good on the surface, once you get into the numbers, it would become nearly impossible. While you would be able to get more money for renovations up front, the cost could not be justified long term, as those tax credits would still not cover enough of the renovation. With low income housing, you have to keep the costs low, and unless you can do that, there is little hope, and the profit margins would be razor thin just to start with and they will quickly be eaten away.

Historically speaking, 30 years has been a nice round number for cost recovery on these types of projects, but these days, developers want it in 20-25 [[or less), and to try for 35 would be a huge risk from this point of view even 10 years ago. When dealing with low income housing, the developer gets substantially less, as much as 70-80% in the long run in terms of rents, so much different that even huge tax credits couldn't compensate for the difference.

While up front this may seem like a viable alternative, with the lower rents received and the astronomical cost recevery period, a proposal of this sort would be a pipe dream to any developer.

It would be nice to just see the building renovated, but it is going to take a very creative person to get a deal done for renovating this building...